Online Identities: The Different Versions of You

As the amount of social networking sites have increased, individuals have more platforms to interact with each other over. Costa and Torres however, claim that this has provided users with the ability to reconstruct their personas or even develop multiple personas online.[1] Nevertheless, is this ability to create and possess multiple online identities necessarily a good thing?

Positives

With job recruiters increasingly checking the social media profiles of existing and prospective employees,[2] creating multiple online identities enables you to control your Digital Footprint and therefore what information can be found out about you online.[3] It allows you to use the web for both professional and recreational purposes without the two ever having to mix, thus preventing further problems.

Multiple online identities also forms as a method of protection from online identity theft. There is less chance of your identity being cloned as personal information that is available about you online is fragmented and exists in several different places.

Additionally, it grants users a certain degree of anonymity, which can aid the flow of creative ideas as well as the production of more critical discussion. This aspect to free speech has long been established as an important element to modern society as it has been infamously noted that, ‘protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse’.[4]

 

Negatives

Conversely, the increased anonymity granted by multiple online identities also plays an instrumental role in the occurrence of the Online Disinhibition Effect, identified by Suler as a contributing factor to people being more hostile online.[5] This can result in cyber-bullying and produces a reduced scope for individuals to be held accountable for their actions. The advantages and disadvantages of anonymity online are discussed further in the video below.

A disconnected image of yourself being portrayed online can cause people to question the authenticity of your online presence and subsequent interactions which you make.[6] Online identity fragmentation reduces your credibility as well as suggesting to others that you may be up to illegitimate activities.

Lastly, it also provides fertile grounds for Online Deception,[7]whereby users are never truly aware as to whom they are interacting with. This reduces the safety of the Internet and is an ever more prevalent issue since programmes such as ‘Catfish’ have surfaced.

These are but a few of the compelling arguments which can be raised for and against possessing more than one online identity, however one thing which remains clear is that our online identities are a focal part to modern society. However, I put it to you, how many versions of you exist online and why?

Word Count: 427

REFERENCES

[1] Cristina Costa and Ricardo Torres, ‘To be or not to be, the importance of Digital Identity in the networked society (2011), [49].

[2] Philip Landau, ‘Job applications: social media profiles under scrutiny’ (The Guardian, December 2013) < http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/dec/11/job-applications-social-media-profiles-scrutiny > accessed 24th February 2016.

Recruitment Grapevine, ‘55% of employers reject candidates after social media search'(September 2014) accessed 24^th February 2016.

[3] Internet Society, Manage Your Identity , http://www.internetsociety.org/manage-your-identity accessed 24^th February 2016.

[4] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).

[5] John Suler, ‘The Online Disinhibition Effect’ (2004) CyberPsychology & Behaviour 7(3) 321, [322].

YouTube, CiviliNation Academy- The Online Disinhibition Effect, accessed 25^th February 2016.

YouTube, CiviliNation Academy- Anonymity and Pseudonymity Online, accessed 25^th February 2016.

[6] Aleks Krotoski, ‘Online identity: is authenticity or anonymity more important? (The Guardian, April 2012) < http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity> accessed 25^th February 2016.

[7] Michail Tsikerdekis and Sherli Zeadally, ‘ Detecting and Preventing Online Identity Deception in Social Networking Services’ (2015) IEEE Internet Computing 19(3).

Image Credits

 

 

Topic 1: Reflections

For this week’s topic, we were given the task of explaining the concepts Digital ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’. These terms originally seemed new to me until I realized that they were developments which had been made to the infamous terms of Digital ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ popularized by Prensky. When reading over Prensky’s original definitions, it is easy to assume that online activity can be determined by your age and whether you fall within the digital ‘natives’ category. However, looking into White & Cornu’s definitions, this highlighted how online activity is not necessarily determined by age.

By reflecting on my own activities, and from reading the comments left on my post, it is clear that rather than us fitting solely into one category of ‘visitors’ or ‘residents’, most of us tend to shift between the two. I do believe that it is more likely for us to satisfy the ‘resident’ criteria, as with modern technology enabling mobile access to the internet on a more consistent basis, as I mentioned in my post, it is easier for us to reside online.

Nevertheless, after reading Shriya’s blog, it was interesting to see the way that she has linked online activity to the role in which it plays in education. This link is very important as, by reflecting on my educational experience, I remember that technology was used but on a minimal scale in comparison to the way in which it is now. As technology advances, the more it is used within education, thus the younger generation have an increased amount of exposure to it from a young age. Therefore, the role in which technology plays in education is an essential element to consider and contributes to reasons why Prensky’s idea of ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ cannot completely be dismissed.

Word Count 294

Posted comments on:

https://bloggerjodie.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/digital-residents-and-digital-visitors/

https://missceospeaks.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/digital-visitors-and-residents/

Topic 1: Digital ‘Residents’ and Digital ‘Visitors’

Whilst describing the Internet activity of cyberspace users, Prensky advanced the terms ‘digital natives’ and ‘immigrants’.[1] Digital natives has become widely appreciated as referring to those born after 1980 and who have subsequently grown up in a world where the Internet and digital environment is an ordinary part of their day.[2] Digital immigrants however refers to those who are slightly older than the generation born post-1980 and who, unlike digital natives, have not grown up surrounded by digital technologies and have therefore had to become accustomed to the digital world. Nevertheless, although these terms provide the foundations for understanding individuals’ online activity, developments have since been made which challenge these simplistic classifications.

Digital Residents is a term which refers to individuals who ‘live a percentage of their life online’. Residents view the digital environment as a place which enables them to think and grow and so are happy to frequently share information about themselves online, resulting in their online and offline lives lacking differentiation. With more services being offered online and an increased amount of locations that offer Wi-FI access, individuals are able to spend more time online which has resulted in a reported 79% of adults using social networks everyday. Therefore this has aided the ability for most internet users to fit the Resident classification.

Digital Visitors on the other hand, is a term which refers to those who ‘use the web as a tool in an organized manner whenever the need arises’.[3] Visitors set aside a specific time to go on the Internet and use it for specific reason and most importantly, they are sceptical about revealing too much about themselves online. Therefore, unlike Residents they do not participate in online culture in the same manner. This is explained in more detail in the video featured below.

However unlike Prensky’s theory, although total extremes of digital Residents and Visitors can exist, White and Cornu identify that individuals move around ‘the box’ (as depicted below) as they can sometimes exhibit traits of both.

Some reflections…

After evaluating my online activity through the self test form, I have realized that my online activity does not fit the criterion put forward by Prensky, but instead reinforces the Visitors and Residents theory. For instance, my scepticism to revealing too much about myself definitely resonates with the traits that are displayed by Visitors, but I am not completely closed off to social networking to fit solely in this category. Therefore, as I tend to move in between the ‘Residents’ and ‘Visitors‘, which I am sure many other Internet users do, this supports the classification purported by White and Cornu.

REFERENCES

[1] Marc Prensky, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’< http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf > accessed 8^th February 2016.

David S White and Alison Le Cornu, ‘Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement’, (2011) First Monday 16(9).

[2] Michael Thomas, ‘Deconstructing Digital Natives: young people, technology and the new literacies’, (London, Routledge 2011).

[3] David White (2008) < http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2008/07/23/not-natives-immigrants-but-visitors-residents/> accessed 8^th February 2016.

An Introduction to #UOSM2008 Living and Working on the Web…

To introduce myself, my name is Kemi and I am a 3rd year Law undergraduate at the University of Southampton. Currently, I am a 3rd year Law Course Representative and I work as a Student Ambassador for the university as well as an e-mentor for various programmes, where I provide prospective Law students with advice through online portals. For the first time during my degree, I have been given the opportunity to choose my course modules, with the option of picking one interdisciplinary module. I have chosen Living and Working on the Web; a curriculum innovation module which takes place purely online.

Why have I chosen this module?

The reason why I have picked this module is because I feel that it will help me to come out of my comfort zones when interacting online; something which is ever more important as society becomes more digitalised. I believe that this module will teach me valuable skills regarding my online presence which can be used in all aspects of my life, both during my studies and after I graduate.

What in particular do I want to learn from this module?

I would like to learn how to utilize the ever expanding digital environment in such a way that can enhance my professional networks. With so many graduates competing for fewer graduate positions, recruiters are constantly looking beyond application forms, so I would like to become more informed as to how I can refine and use my online presence to stand out within such a competitive market.

SELF TEST EVALUATION

As part of the #UOSM2008 Living and Working on the Web module, we have been asked to complete a self-test form to evaluate our current online activity at the beginning of the course, which we will then complete again at the end in order to monitor our progress. With each category we have to rate ourselves with a number between 1, which represents no experience and 5, which represents being very experienced in said area. My results are as follows:-

Accessing, managing and evaluating online information (Self Rating= 3)

As I have to rely on extensive online research for my course, I have learned how to differentiate between sources which are credible and those which are not so credible.

Participating in online communities (Self Rating= 1)

Having only created my first Facebook in 2014, I am still getting to grips with using the site and therefore haven’t become as integrated within that online community as much as my peers have. I also tend to be quite reluctant in participating in certain online communities for the fear of revealing too much information about myself and compromising my privacy, hence why I have rated myself quite low in this category.

Building online networks around an area of interest (Self Rating= 1)

As with my rating for participating in online communities, I cannot rate myself highly at all in this category as I have always exercised a degree of reluctance with regards to getting involved with different online networks; more so to do with an area of interest. At most I am part of society Facebook groups however my participation within these does not extend further than the occasional like.

Collaborating with others on shared projects (Self Rating= 2)

Within my course, we rarely do group projects therefore there is little opportunity to collaborate with others especially through online portals. I have however, had experience of this mostly through my extra-curricular activities and the various society committees that I have been a part of in the past.

Creating online materials (text, audio, images, video) (Self Rating= 3)

I have created online materials mostly in the form of text. I have experience of creating images for photo sharing social media websites, such as Instagram, however these are purely limited to collages and selfies! I have not yet expanded to creating videos, or audio files.

Managing your online identity (Self Rating= 4)

I would say that as I am quite cautious with the information I put online, therefore it is quite easy to manage my online identity as it does not exist on many platforms.

Managing your online privacy and security (Self Rating= 4)

This I would rate quite highly, as I believe online privacy and security is very important when participating in online activity. Along with activating the highest security settings on my social media pages, I also try to regularly monitor what information I can find about myself online. Additionally, I am aware of how to exercise my ‘right to be forgotten’ if an instance occurs whereby I feel the need to restrict access to certain content which is available about myself online.

 

Some reflections…

When reflecting on the results that this self-test exercise has produced, it is clear that I have been quite guarded online and that I may potentially restrict myself too much with regard to the activities I participate in online. This could potentially be because of the nature of my course, along with the notion of online safety being instilled within me from a young age. Either way, it is clear that I have adopted a slightly outdated mentality that the best way to stay on the safe side, is by opting to put little to nothing about myself online.

By completing this exercise, it has highlighted a key area which I aim to work on throughout the duration of this module, which is to become more informed about the online environment. Subsequently, I look forward to participating in the #UOSM2008 Living and Working on the Web module as I hope that I will develop skills which will enable to become more comfortable and less guarded when interacting within the digital environment.

Please feel free to comment on and share any of my posts and join me on this journey as I learn how to live and work on the web!

K x